>> ana: welcome back. well, this is my first time ever hosting a television show solo, and i had a blast doing it. thank you so much to michael shure, michael hastings, jayar jackson, and all of our wonderful guests for making this show happen today. i love you guys, love our fans. we'll see you next. "viewpoint" with john fugelsang is next. [ ♪ music ♪ ] [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> john: he's now been dead for five long months, but friends feel armstrong is still having a better week than lance armstrong. and gun appreciation day. it's a chance for people from all walks of life of american life to gather and not care about the mass murder of

innocent children together. and finally creationism is being taught as science in some louisiana schools. we'll bring you a story about people who are so primitive that you might just decide that maybe darwin was wrong. today is the birthday of kevin costner, maryland governor martin o'malley, and naacp head ben jealous and maryland i don't know barry was caught smoking crack on come are a and tragically never had a chance to make a self-serving half-truth confession on the own network. >> john: good evening, i'm john fugelsang. he cheated. he lied. he took the money. the rock star fame. and at least one other actual rock star, and reveled in the% praise of humanitarian and

fillenphilanthropic works but today lance armstrong is just another fallen loser, the bottom line, lance, after insisting for years that you never ever, ever used performance-enhancing drugs in your cycling career, did you ever use any banned substances like testosterone cortisone or human growth hormone? >> yes. >> yes or no, in all seven of your tour de france victories did you ever take banned substances or blood dope? >> yes. >> in your opinion was it humanly possible to win the four de france without doping, seven times in a row. >> not in my opinion. >> john: well, that makes it okay then. hey lance, why are you telling us this now?

>> i don't know that i have a great answer. i will start my answer by saying this is too late. it's too late for probably most people and that's my fault. i viewed this situation as one big lie that i repeated a lot of times, and as you said, it wasn't as if i just said no and i moved off it. >> right, you were defiant. you called other people liars. >> i understand that. all the fault and all the blame here falls on me. but behind that picture and behind that story is momentum. whether its fans or whether it's the media it just gets going and i lost myself in all that. >> john: all the blame falls on

me, but big mos really to blame. well, not entirely momentum. there is the whole cycling culture. >> i didn't invent the culture but i didn't try to stop the culture. that's my mistake and that's what i have to be sorry for and that's what something--and the sport is now paying the price because of that. i am sorry for that. i don't think--i didn't have access to anything else that nobody else did. >> john: well, yeah, everybody does it. i'm juiced up right now. who exactly is lance armstrong? >> you and i both know that fame just magnifies whoever you really are. so if you're a jerk you're a bigger jerk. if you're a humanitarian, you're a bigger humanitarian. >> um, i would say i was both, and we saw both. now we're seeing certainly more of the jerk part.

>> cenk: jerk might not be the proper lexicon for this occasion. i think there is more of that jerk part still to come. save ziron this man has been our go-to man on everything lance armstrongen. thanks so much. >> great to be here. >> great to have you. >> john: what was your over all reaction. >> i thought it made the titanic look like a smooth viage by comparison. lance armstrong he hit iceberg oprah and it was all down hill from there. lance armstrong had two main tasks he had to get done in this interview, and he failed spectacularly at both of them. one, he had to chose the anti-doping agency that he was willing to play ball. he had to be willing to say your findings were correct and i

throw myself on the court. the second thing he had to do was to rebuild his public image. i regret this so much. i'm not a bad guy and give me another chance. i'm really sorry america. the center of the anti-doping agencies support that he facilitated a doping ring among his cyclists. let's remember, lance armstrong was a boss in the world of cycling. not just a star cyclist. he wasn't barry bonds. he was a hybrid of bonds and george steinbrenner. he ran his team. he said to oprah absolutely not when she asked him if he bullied other riders into doping. yet when she asked if he bullied people in other ways. yes, i bullied people to control the narrative, which is an oprah groupie phrase in meeting the moment. but he failed at both of these things. he reminded people not what they liked about him but he actually

introduced people to something they really didn't like while at the same time anchoring us at at the same time. >> john: i want to play the clip you just mentioned but first let me can ask you do you think there is out there in sports fans anyone who is impressed by this and will cut lance some slack today. >> i think you could mine the darkest recesses of twitter and those are dark, and search far and wide, and you're not going to find anyone who thought this went well. i couldn't even find anyone who would give him points for trying. it was viewed as a heart of darkness where oprah kept repeat lid, repeatedly--i got to be--i was wrong when i slammed oprah. >> john: i told you that. >> you were right to do that. i throw myself on the mercy of harpo, but she did a great job. this is very oprah, this is what you get. she did try to mix the tough questions that she did ask with

softball, lance, humanize yourself, dance with me, but it was like ginger rogers dance with captain kangaroo. and he couldn't do it. as a result people were just left watching, wow this is not a good guy. >> john: i think those softball questions were the lube that makes the engine of a really tough interview run smoothly. there are sections of the interview we haven't played yet that you found really, really wrong. i wanting to through them right now and get your reaction to each one. >> you don't ask me about my childhood. where is my lube. >> john: if you were a sports reporting tree what tree would you be. let's go to lance doping with the other members of his team. >> if someone was not doing something to your satisfaction could you get them fired. >> it depends on what they're doing. if you're asking me somebody on the team says, i'm not going to dope. >> yeah. >> i say you're fired?

>> yes. >> absolutely not. >> one of your former teammates christian vanderbilt said that you threatened to kick him off the team if he didn't shape up and conform to the doping program. >> that's--that's not true. >> were you a bully? >> um, yeah, yeah, i was a bully. i was a bully in the sense that i tried to control the narrative narrative. >> john: so he tried to control the story, not the teammates right? it seems like he's really trying to have it both ways there. >> i mean, the thing that is most damaging about that, if last night was supposed to do nothing else, nothing else, it was supposed to signal to eric that the lying is done. it was not just america but other riders, the cycling community, live strong, the lying is done. and yet by saying that last night, lance armstrong is saying either that he's lying or that

multiple people lied under oath with possible perjury charges. they can't both be true. either he implicated his former teammates and really they weren't his teammates. they were his workers. he either implicated them in perjury or he lied again. >> cenk: which is why i think the interview succeeded in rendering lance armstrong as a guy nobody can believe anything. i wouldn't trust directions to walmart from this guy after the interview last night and i don't understand where he intends to do after this half-hearted attempt. take a look. >> what do you want to say about mr o'reilly. >> she's one of these people that i have to apologize to. >> you sued her. >> to be honest, oprah we sued so many people, i'm sure we did. >> you were suing people, and

you know that they're telling the truth. what is that? >> it's a major flaw and it's a guy who expected to get whatever he wanted, and to control every outcome. all of this was a process for me. one of the steps of the process is to speak to those people directly and just say to them that i am sorry. >> john: nixon handle frost better than this. >> yeah. >> john: it's a guy who already is putting himself in the third person. what was your take on that quote? >> i would say it was utterly charmless to put it mildly. look, the thing about lance armstrong he was an absolute rock star as an athlete, but he was also one of us, particularly because it's hard to find a family in this country now whose lives have not been touched in some way shape or form by cancer. lance was one of us. but he was also this rock star. but with that statement you get to something that is hat the

heart of even he quality in the justice system in the united states. if your wealthy and you can afford an army of lawyers you can destroy people even if those people are innocent and they don't have the financial resources that you have. that is something that a lot of people live in fear of. something for me, a big time right wing journalist who will go nameless for this broadcast threatened to sue me, and i didn't sleep for a week because he could afford lawyers and i couldn't. it's something that people feel in their gut. for him to say blithely i lost count of the people i could have sued it's enraging, especially anyone who is familiar with the story and know that he ruined a portion of mo o'reilly's life. to what end? to protect his own myth. >> john: his own philanthropy.

armstrong is asked by oprah about a woman who relateed information about his drug use while being treated for cancer. >> i said, i called you crazy i called you a pitch, i called you all these things. i never called you fat. because that's-- >> that's one of the things she said. >> she thought i said you were a fat crazy pitch. i said, betsy, i never said you were fat. >> he can talk about everything now. he can talk about that because i brought it up to him. we talked about that. this is a guy who used to be my friend who decimated me. he could have come clean. he owed it to me. he owes it to the sport that he destroyed. and don't--when he says he doesn't like the uci? that's a bunch of crap. he had the uci in his back

pocket. lance wasn't a leader? that's a bunch of crap because he owned the team. >> john: for the folks at home she had testified that she overheard lance telling his doctor all the drugs he was on, and that he called her this, and it seems like when he was saying i never called her fat he was clinging to the one shred of truth in this entire narrative would you agree? >> i would say if there is one person on the face of the earth you don't want to make a fat chick joke to, it would be oprah winfrey for goodness sakes. i thought that was the part on twitter and the people i was watching with thought was the most god smacking. thank you that only makes you look worse. but the interesting thing that betsy andreu said, lance was the main impediment to cyclists ever

organizing an union. cyclists tried to organize an union. he was the one who said have made it happen and he was the person who stopped it from happening. if you want to stop doping, then you have to make courses safer. that's why people dope. the courses were death marchs. lance armstrong stood against that while making sure he had the best dope so he could win seven tour de frances. it gets so disgusting that it's hard not to feel as angry as ms. andreu sounded in that clip. >> john: and it seems to cast some doubt on armstrong's claim that he's sorry. >> your come back was also a tipping point. do you regret coming back. >> i do. i wouldn't be sitting here if i hadn't come back. >> you would have gotten away with it? >> it's impossible to say. much better chances.

but i didn't. >> john: dave, i have to imagine that considering the amount of slander lawsuits that are going to be coming at him and defamation of character lawsuit he must have lawyered up before this interview with oprah ever began, would you assume that. >> i would assume that he talked to attorneys and he spent considerable time hiding his assets because he's going to be sued. i don't think he even understood the question that oprah was asking. what oprah was asking him was so the only reason you're sitting here talking to me is because you got caught, like you just said if you hadn't of come back you wouldn't be in this position right now. that's what this is? you're only here because you got caught? he took it, wow life sure stinks for me. didn't that stink that i came back. it's the sense that he still doesn't quite get that he shouldn't be sorry that he got

sorry. he should be sorry for the damage he inflicted on others. and him not copping to that is so important. i think most people, i actually know most people, polls show this are generally sympathetic to say you're a typical steroid user in baseball. look at andy pettitte, alex rodriguez, players throughout the major league baseball league with much less in terms of scandal and forgiveness. okay you did it. you're a pro athlete. you're trying to get paid. we get it. this is a different scenario. you don't have alex rodriguez and barry bonds. i think barry bonds was a winner because he looked like a better guy in comparison. but you don't have them trying to destroy other people's lives suing them back to the stone age and putting them on the higher pedestal with no basis for it and using this horrible disease as one of your shields as a way to deflect criticism.

>> john: i think if you came out and said, oprah are a i'm a lying rat bastard and i'm a bad bad man. he could have been played out cool. he would have gotten cool points by folks out there. but instead of trying to seem like a sympathetic liar and smearer, he dug himself a deeper hole. >> i agree with you entirely. >> john: david zirin and author of "game over," and apparently new devoted own viewer, thank you for joining us. >> my privilege. >> john: speaking of lies, some louisiana schools are teaching creationism with a course in advance santa claus. one student's battle against it coming right up.

>> john: it's funny to watch "inherit the wind" and teach science in a science class even though evolution is no longer

illegal, and some christian educators have continued to teach the book of genesis as science. in 2008 bobby jindal passed the science education act which encourages teachers to bring in their own supplemental material when teaching controversial subject such as evolution. but then teachers excluded evolutionism but creationism. and that is what forced students like zach koplan to speak out. >> christians have claimed that it promotes critical thinking. you don't need a law to teach critical thinking in science class. critical thinking is fundamental to the scientific amal method.

>> john: joining me now is that very young man, zach koplan at rice university who is leading the fight to repeal the louisiana science education act thank you for coming on the program and for your service to science, and christianity. >> thank you. >> john: what made you speak out on this. >> the louisiana science education act passed in 2008, it was something that had been on my radar since then and symbolized everything that could be embarrassing about my state. i mean, you probably know there are jokes made about louisiana how we're back watered. at that age i hadn't learned to love the good things and fight against the bad. it symbolized everything wrong. i was in high school, and i didn't realize i could fight it at that time. but by my senior year i figured out that no one was standing up and someone needed to and that

was me. >> john: christians want to rebel against the bad things and speak out about the good. creationism really has nothing to do with jesus. so who exactly is against repealing this very silly bill? >> so in is a group in louisiana, the louisiana family forum who is the group that has been pushing this instate. and they have a large amount of influence with the louisiana legislature. now nationally there is a group in seattle that has been pushing creationism bills across the country. they tried to get one called the santorum amendment in 2002 in george bush's "no child left behind" act. they've been pushing this, and they've been successful in some ways. they had a bill passed in tennessee. they introduced a bill in missouri, and we'll see one in texas where i am at school, and we have to fight to make sure

that they don't pass and repeal the ones that have passed. >> john: louisiana is leading the way, i won't call them christians, to try to get their agenda in science class. they public ad biology textbook that said that man was around at the same time of the loch ness monster, that they were around with dinosaurs and these myths. it's repealing the science education act. how do the school vouchers play into this disinformation. >> you mentioned the loch ness monster story. i saw earlier in the year that the state passed a voucher program because i didn't know much about school voucher and education at the time but how one school was receiving

taxpayer money. vouchers take money from public schools and give them to private schools. and it was taking taxpayer money teaching that the loch ness monster was rule and disproving evolution. i was researching it now and in louisiana i exposed that there are 19-20 schools in louisiana that are at least teaching creationism and receiving public money. so the this isn't just louisiana. this is also nationally. these vouchers are in nine states and dc teaching creation. creationism, and receiving millions and millions of public dollars. we found schools--nun indiana where indiana is supposed to be the gold standards of vouchers. they're bringing schools to creationism. >> john: amazing. i have no problem with teaching creationism in science a class as long as you teach evolution

theory in bible study. i want to thank you for the work you're doing. there have to be plenty of christians who are embarrassed about this myth addiction not to come back to it, but it has nothing to do with christianity and jesus' teachings are all about. do you get that support. >> one that i would like to highlight is reverend goty from louisiana, and also the president of the national organization, and he has been a strong supporter of this repeal, louisiana education act and fighting against the voucher. and he has been fighting jindal in passing the creationism. he said it's the right thing constitutionally, religiously. he has been a supporter and there have been others. >> john: where can people find more about you and the work

you're doing? >> you can check out weight repeal creationism.com or or creationism.com or find us on facebook on say no to creation vouchers. >> john: zach kopplin, thank you for coming in and instilling your fight against creationism. good luck. >> thank you for having me on. >> john: the most hysterically inane hannity graphic of the week. that's next. circumstance & the inside analysis. the presidential inauguration this monday morning at 10 eastern only on current tv.

>> john: welcome once again friends to the quickest awards show in the world.

tonight's category, the most hysterically inane and the winsers are, president obama is coming for your guns. the same day president obama giving a speech explaining he wouldn't do that. you go, sean. and then number two king obama because kings need to bend over backwards and compromise to pass laws. it's imperialism. and number three hostile workplace because the president has not nominated enough women to cabinet position. and when it comes to diversity fox news is on the line. the quickie goes to, tv's frank everyone obama is coming for your guns. let's here it. thank you sean. not only is this a hannity lie worthy of lance armstrong but while sitting next to that very graphic karl rove said this. >> if the definition that we're not going to have weapons that

look scary then there is going to be someone who always finds weapons scary. >> john: they're especially scary karl, when they're rapidly fired at innocent moviegoers and young students, not that you care. this is kind of like porn for moral people. and while they could not be here tonight we accept this award on their hysterically evil we half. we'll be right back.

>> john: with all the violent crime in america today, it's easy to forget that it used to be worse, a lot worse. between 1960 and the early 1990s violent crime nearly quadrupled. but then something happened crime suddenlyly began plummeting. how did this happen?

many credit policing strategyies and incarceration rates. and some believe bogues as a population control. but in a cover story from mother jones, it points to a different possibility, lead. the poison that is to permanently reduce i.q. and the biggest source of lead was not paint, it was leaded gasoline or more specifically the additive invented by general motors back in the 1920s. the findings' monumental find findings for the rise and fall of lead con supplies consumption coon included that it explained 90% of the variation of violent crime in america toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the 1940s and 50s were really more likely to become violent criminal analysiss in the 60s 70ers, and 80s.

kevin joins us with more. thank you for joining us. >> thank you john. >> john: it seems so inconceivable that lead could cause all this trouble and then you look at the numbers. are you convinced that the various of violent crime in america is due to lead exposure? >> well, a couple of things. the 90% number is a highest mate. i would say somewhere between 50% and 90%. the research is not showing that lead is responsible for all crime. it's responsible for the bulge in crime in the 60s 70s and 80s and then went away. you could get rid of all the lead on the planet and you would still have some crime, but you wouldn't have the huge spike that we saw in the 60s and 70s. >> john: what was it when you first studied this report that you found so compelling? what pushed you over the edge and made you a believer? >> well, two things.

one, there are so many threads of research pointing in this direction. one is you have these studies showing strong correlation between the rise and fall of lead and the rise and fall of crime. then you have studies that are call perspective longitudinal studies where you study children from when they're born. in cincinnati they've been following a group of children. they brought them in, and tested lead levels in their blood and tested for a bunch of other things. by age five they were doing worse in school. by age 15 they were juvenile delinquency, by age 18 they're mitting more crimes. then recently you have the mri imagery studies showing what lead does to the brain and it affects areas of the brain that

affect impulse control judgment emotional regulation, the kinds of things that you might think would contribute to violent crime. >> john: now, you point out in the piece that everybody over the age of 40 in this country was most likely exposed to too much lead in their childhood. most of those people, of course, aren't violent criminals. does it affect some people and not others? >> no, it affects everybody but you should think of lead in as something that pushes you in a direction. if you're born to good parents and you have no strikes against you. you go to good schools so forth. yeah lead will affect you but probably not enough to be noticeable. but people who are born with two strikes against them. they're born in poverty they go to bad schools they hang around gangster tores. these are kids who might

normally grow up. they wouldn't lead great lives but okay lives. they would have a few brushes with the law. then you add lead to that mixture. those kids with two and a half strikes are pushed over the edge into becoming violent criminals. you have a few million mother of more of those that doubles and triples the amount of violence crime. >> john: what does lead do to the blame? are we talking about ingesting it via car exhaust? >> the mechanism is primarily through dust. this is true in lead paint and lead gasoline. lead comes out into the atmosphere settles into the ground and turns into dust. kids crawl around on the ground. they get their hands dirty. they lick their hands and that's mainly how lead gets in the bloodstream. >> john: how long have we known about these behavioral affects of lead. i recall growing up in new york city seeing ads on subways by

lawyers, did your kids eat lead chips? you might be entitled to damages. how long has this been going on. >> it has been going on for quite a long time in some respects. we knew that lead was dangerous at high levels. workers who worked in lead smelting plans or plants or lead mines were known to be affected. they are known as mean and dumb that was thought of people who worked in lead plants. that was in high rates of exposure. now we learned that modest exposure levels in children would reduce i.q. children would do worse in school and have more learning disabilities, that sort of thing. that is very well established. more recently we have seen the connection with violent crime. you add all those things up, and if a way you asked why i wasn't surprised by this. the reason is we know that lead

does. we know what it does in high amounts, and as time has gone by we've discovered the lead affects children in smaller and smaller amounts than we thought. in a way it's not surprising to find out that in addition to everything else, it also affects impulse control and aggression levels and things like that. >> john: well, leaded gasoline has been banned since 1996. it will be fascinating in years to come to measure how these results even out. kevin crum, everyone should read your piece. thank you for coming on this evening. >> thanks for making ever having me on. >> john: what will make tomorrow's gun appreciation day look more ridiculous? if a white supremest group sponsored it? done. circumstance & the inside analysis. the presidential inauguration this monday morning at 10 eastern only on current tv.

>> john: where the right wing gun nuts go, the white ring supremacists can't be far mind. it was revealed that today one of the sponsors saturday's gun appreciation day is a group known as america's third position who is listed as a white supremacist hate group by the southern poverty law center. this comes as a shock to no fox new viewer because it won't be report there had. it is will also come as no surprise that gun appreciation day's founder larry ward who opted to plan his gun fetishize fetishizing organize guy two days before the nation will celebrate the bit of dr. martin luther king martinluther king jr. who died at the age of 39 after being shot by a right wing white man. and to try to create a perfect race of uniform thinking is white supremacist who is arguing against the concept of white

supremacy. here to help me again geared up for white supremacy day ben kissel and comedian and star of "the muslims are coming" negin farsad and comedian and host of reuben report dave rubin. >> how do you appreciate your gun? like, you appreciate your father. you appreciate your mother. you give them a nice card. do you give your gun a card? thank you for making my average male genitalia mildly adequate. do you take it out for a steak dinner a milkshake? >> john: it's not about appreciating your gun. it's about rallying people behind the nra which serves the gun manufacturers. >> and rallying behind the fear

of immigrants. as a child of a couple of dirty immigrants myself, let me tell you what happens in those homes. on the average night my parents who immigrated here from iran, scary. on an average night those guys will be watching a dvr episode of "downington abby" while eating di georno. and if these people knock on their door they'll be invited in for tea. have your gun appreciate day and have your hatred of immigrants, but what you'll get from immigrants is love. it's very confusing and that's how multi racial babies are born. >> john: is it a fair consideration to say that all the folks behind gun appreciation day are actually white supremacists? >> i think this is just consistent with what these groups do. because they're starting do something that is a term that you taught me.

gishgow where they do things so antithetical to the way normal people think that they don't know how to react. how can they be doing it, yet they are and thus we talk about it. >> they take the conversation so far to the right that it's impossible to have a rational conversation because now you're talking about arming teachers. no i thought we were going to talk about gun control. you get the feeling that they get all their ideas even though they hate hollywood, they get their ideas from movies and straight from kindergarten cop. >> john: i have no idea about fake hollywood violence, but if slaves had been armed they wouldn't have been slaves. too much about the white wing man who propped up up the institution of slavery for hundreds of years. >> the white supremest guy.

>> john: he's not the guy from the fleshing third position. he's not exactly a white supremacist. >> he's close enough. >> they're friends. >> you can see what he's doing here. >> john: best friends who don't have any black friends. >> precisely. wow, we love black people so much that we're going to use slave--if they only would have had guns because that's how much we love them. it's just really-- >> john: it's an argument this week that if only dr. martin luther king jr. had a gun he would have been able to fight off the white gun-wielding guy who killed him. too bad they were teaching christians about non-violence. >> this is straight out of "django unchainedded". you get the feeling that they watched django, loved the first half. don't like the ending as much but i have a great idea how we can swing this white supremacist message out there. >> john: speaking of white

supremacist, house g.o.p. they went on their winter retreat in williamsburg, virginia. great town. i got family there. but one of the goals of the retreat was how to better reach out to minorities. they decided to hold it at the kings mill resort, the site of an old plantation where slaves were kept. i mean-- >> this is brilliant. >> john: this is like reaching out to women voters by having a retreat at ike turner's old house. >> i have friend who have black friends, and this is equivalent to having a discussion about cancer research like in a--in a nuclear zone. in an area full of the thing that causes cancer. >> john: i'm not saying that republicans are racists. i don't think that most republicans have racial hatred in their hearts. they have bad habits leftover from grandma and grandpa's day. >> they're trying to put icing into a pile of garbage. when you bite into it, you'll

taste the icing, and it might be delicious for a second and then you taste the garbage. what the problem is the underlying policies, not how they're being communicated. the problem is they think women should be in a constant state of ultrasounds. not how are we going to talk about women being in a constant state of ultrasound. the approach should not be marketing. marketing is not the problem. it's the underlying policies. >> the republican leadership is basically becoming the group of republicans from the the simpsons when they make fun of them. they're in that castle and it's mr. burns and the oil guy and dracula. they're sitting there--i think all my answers to these questions have been very similar. how do they get away with this stuff? >> john: somewhere in their coffins, the whig party are laughing. >> they just woke up in this plantation.

the republicans brothers and sisters, we're pulling for you. it's not that they should hold this conference at a plantation. >> go to an ihop. >> john: dennis kucinich former congressman of ohio and two time presidential candidate and one of my favorite people to work in dc. smart career move. >> he'll make a lot of money and he'll have the strongest handshake on fox getting hannity out of that seat. >> he's going to make money. he's going to give them the one possible count point and it's a win-win. maybe he'll bring a little left-wing sanity to the organization. >> and it's about building bridges. it shouldn't be like we should be combative with the right. it's about building a bring and there can be love. you know what i mean? and dennis kucinich could be the beginning of love. >> john: i love getting

conservative comedians coming on this show, and i couldn't like it more. they have got an articulate guy who is great at messaging and he might be surprising. >> and he won't be a punching bag at all. >> john: ben kissel, welcome back and comedian negin farsad, and comedian dave rubin. thank you for coming. the latest cues from gun nuts. what assault rifle would jesus buy? my commentary on that next. looking for guns, drugs, bodies. the cartel is so heavily armed the military needs everything they've got to go up against these guys.

at cepacol we've heard people are going to extremes to relieve their sore throats. oh, okay, you don't need to do that. but i don't want any more of the usual lozenges and i want new cooling relief! ugh. how do you feel? now i'm cold. hmm. this is a better choice. new cepacol sensations cools instantly, and has an active ingredient that stays with you long after the lozenge is gone. ahhh. not just a sensation sensational relief.

hershey's simple pleasures chocolate. 30% less fat, 100% delicious. [ male announcer ] this is karen and jeremiah. they don't know it yet but they're gonna fall in love get married, have a couple of kids, [ children laughing ] move to the country, and live a long, happy life together where they almost never fight about money. [ dog barks ] because right after they get married they'll find some retirement people who are paid on salary not commission. they'll get straightforward guidance and be able to focus on other things, like each other, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. >> john: friends. here's the bible lesson of the

day, and it might come in handy for christians, eastists or sane americans of all faiths. because right wing christians gun enthusiasts have new ammo in their fight to prove that you can be a follower of jesus and enjoy weapons that are designed to kill lots of people. it's luke 22:36 and whatever you think of reasonable you may well encounter this talking point. it's part of luke's account of what happened to jesus just before the roman soldiers came to arrest him throw him in the roman prison and execute him with the roman crucifix or as glenn beck puts it, killed by the jews. now jesus tells his apostles that he had has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one. to go ahead and search luke 22: 22:36. tons of christians are throwing

this around like the last part of the second amendment, and they're saying that jesus is pro gun to modern day sword. what jesus is doing is talking about prophecy and being a criminal. when jesus throws down his line about buying a sword he adds that they only need swords because of the prophecy says that they're supposed to be criminals. for i say unto you that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, and he was reckoned among the